The Subway and the City's survival.

[RailRunRob]

I've been saying it forever.  The Subway and City are one in the same. It's going to start hitting pockets soon..

Good read.. just wanted to share.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/magazine/subway-new-york-city-public-transportation-wealth-inequality.html

[Via Garibaldi 8]

49 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

I've been saying it forever.  The Subway and City are one in the same. It's going to start hitting pockets soon..

Good read.. just wanted to share.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/magazine/subway-new-york-city-public-transportation-wealth-inequality.html

MVH and de Blasio will keep yelling about the funds that the City gave the  a few years ago, as if that takes care of everything... 

What a dump that control tower is. They can't afford a decent chair for her?  Her chair is covered by a garbage bag... Smh

 

This one also got me:

Quote

About 3,000 of the system’s 6,400 cars date to the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s. About half of those need to be rebuilt with modern motors, wheels and brakes, as well as open gangways between the cars to increase capacity. The other half need to be replaced altogether

 

[LTA1992]

What I love is that for the first time since I realized it three years ago, someone has finally mentioned that gentrification can happen without dislocating long time residents.

[Deucey]

9 minutes ago, LTA1992 said:

What I love is that for the first time since I realized it three years ago, someone has finally mentioned that gentrification can happen without dislocating long time residents.

If only that were true...

Gentrification is redeveloping areas to suit middle class tastes, if you want to be polite about it. If you want to be real about it, it's redeveloping areas to bring in affluent residents. Or, removing poorer folks to make way for folks with money.

Without going full hotep/whataboutterist, gentrification is always put in the white-minority context, but it happens to poor whites too - San Diego, Vegas, Phoenix and even my hometown Sacramento spring to mind: white neighborhoods for generations being rebuilt and becoming more expensive while pushing poor and low middle class whites out in favor of folks with money. Folsom (a Sacramento suburb, where Folsom Prison of Johnny Cash fame is), used to be a small podunk town with pockets of money but mainly lower middle class folks. Over the last 20 years, it's become the Williamsburg of Sacramento - overly expensive housing, lifestyle centers, etc. Even the poor Historic Folsom - by where the old prison and powerhouse were, is now trendy for people to live in.

And all the poor folks? They moved to Orangevale (across the river from Folsom).

 

You can't gentrify without displacing long-termers, because it's inherent that if the long termers had the money to afford luxury, they'd have built luxury instead of living in decrepit or dated surroundings.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

2 minutes ago, Deucey said:

If only that were true...

Gentrification is redeveloping areas to suit middle class tastes, if you want to be polite about it. If you want to be real about it, it's redeveloping areas to bring in affluent residents. Or, removing poorer folks to make way for folks with money.

Without going full hotep/whataboutterist, gentrification is always put in the white-minority context, but it happens to poor whites too - San Diego, Vegas, Phoenix and even my hometown Sacramento spring to mind: white neighborhoods for generations being rebuilt and becoming more expensive while pushing poor and low middle class whites out in favor of folks with money. Folsom (a Sacramento suburb, where Folsom Prison of Johnny Cash fame is), used to be a small podunk town with pockets of money but mainly lower middle class folks. Over the last 20 years, it's become the Williamsburg of Sacramento - overly expensive housing, lifestyle centers, etc. Even the poor Historic Folsom - by where the old prison and powerhouse were, is now trendy for people to live in.

And all the poor folks? They moved to Orangevale (across the river from Folsom).

 

You can't gentrify without displacing long-termers, because it's inherent that if the long termers had the money to afford luxury, they'd have built luxury instead of living in decrepit or dated surroundings.

Definitely true.  It's happening in just about every neighborhood too, even upper middle class ones.  I've had some neighbors that were forced out by substantial increases in rent.  It started in my area probably about 3 - 4 years ago since prior to that we were coming out of a recession.  The neighbor that I had since I moved to Riverdale was pushed out before I moved.  He could not afford the new proposed rents (we had been told about them well in advance) and that was before considering taking an upgraded apartment elsewhere.  I don't know what his salary was, but I don't think it was above $60,000, that I'm sure of.  Some of the new people that have moved to where I am now have to make over $70,000 and up to around $90,000+ for some apartments to afford the rent.

If you're smart, you're always looking to stay ahead of the game regardless of how much money you make. I've always had the attitude that you can always make more money, especially if you are educated, which is why I never stop working. lol Not only that, but living costs have gone up (skyrocketed in fact) just about every year.  I'd say aside from college tuition, living costs have definitely outpaced inflation, so as you said, gentrification will always push someone out.  

[LTA1992]

That's only an issue when you don't INCREASE THE DEVELOPMENT ON EXISTING SPACE. If you gentrify a neighborhood while keeping the same zoning that exists, no new housing is created and thus prices rise. That's the problem that people see when they have negative views on gentrification. 

When you increase density in areas that are gentrifying, you increase the overall housing available. Which means that the new can come in, while leaving plenty for those who already reside in the area. When housing is more plentiful, you can afford to keep prices for low income individuals somewhat stable. THAT is the solution I was referring to. But I guess neither one of you thought of that.

It's a simple methodology. To keep prices low for those who are already here, increase supply. You can't increase supply if you don't up the density. Prices only go up when housing is scarce. And scarce it is. THAT is the issue with gentrification. Not the phenomenon itself as it's happened time and time again here. There's a reason I almost never use the word.

Back in the early 1900s, they drew up the Dual Systems Contracts specifically to increase housing in the city as the key to that was transportation. The goal being to provide new homes in better, cleaner, areas of the city which would allow the poorer residents that were stuck in the slums of Lower Manhattan an opportunity to get their piece of the American Dream. Instead of living in extremely crowded conditions near their work, they could now live further away and still be able to reach their jobs while not having to pay much more than they already did to live and at the same time, allow an influx of new residents.. This also created jobs because these new areas now needed city services, stores, schools, and whatever else. The same applies today. Do more with what you have so that those without will have a chance.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

8 minutes ago, LTA1992 said:

That's only an issue when you don't INCREASE THE DEVELOPMENT ON EXISTING SPACE. If you gentrify a neighborhood while keeping the same zoning that exists, no new housing is created and thus prices rise. That's the problem that people see when they have negative views on gentrification. 

When you increase density in areas that are gentrifying, you increase the overall housing available. Which means that the new can come in, while leaving plenty for those who already reside in the area. When housing is more plentiful, you can afford to keep prices for low income individuals somewhat stable. THAT is the solution I was referring to. But I guess neither one of you thought of that.

It's a simple methodology. To keep prices low for those who are already here, increase supply. You can't increase supply if you don't up the density. Prices only go up when housing is scarce. And scarce it is. THAT is the issue with gentrification. Not the phenomenon itself as it's happened time and time again here. There's a reason I almost never use the word.

Back in the early 1900s, they drew up the Dual Systems Contracts specifically to increase housing in the city as the key to that was transportation. The goal being to provide new homes in better, cleaner, areas of the city which would allow the poorer residents that were stuck in the slums of Lower Manhattan an opportunity to get their piece of the American Dream. Instead of living in extremely crowded conditions near their work, they could now live further away and still be able to reach their jobs while not having to pay much more than they already did to live. This also created jobs because these new areas now needed city services, stores, schools, and whatever else. London had the same idea when they build their first Metro. The same applies today. Do more with what you have so that those without will have a chance.

Uh no... I have plenty of new developments happening in my neighborhood, and all it has done is given landlords in the area the grand idea of renovating their buildings so that they can jack up the rents even more.  There's a new building near me.  Studios start at $1,900.  One bedrooms start at $2,650 and two bedrooms go for $3,300.  People with higher incomes always have to move in (even if just slightly), regardless of the area.  

[bobtehpanda]

7 hours ago, Deucey said:

If only that were true...

Gentrification is redeveloping areas to suit middle class tastes, if you want to be polite about it. If you want to be real about it, it's redeveloping areas to bring in affluent residents. Or, removing poorer folks to make way for folks with money.

Without going full hotep/whataboutterist, gentrification is always put in the white-minority context, but it happens to poor whites too - San Diego, Vegas, Phoenix and even my hometown Sacramento spring to mind: white neighborhoods for generations being rebuilt and becoming more expensive while pushing poor and low middle class whites out in favor of folks with money. Folsom (a Sacramento suburb, where Folsom Prison of Johnny Cash fame is), used to be a small podunk town with pockets of money but mainly lower middle class folks. Over the last 20 years, it's become the Williamsburg of Sacramento - overly expensive housing, lifestyle centers, etc. Even the poor Historic Folsom - by where the old prison and powerhouse were, is now trendy for people to live in.

And all the poor folks? They moved to Orangevale (across the river from Folsom).

You can't gentrify without displacing long-termers, because it's inherent that if the long termers had the money to afford luxury, they'd have built luxury instead of living in decrepit or dated surroundings.

Gentrification of poor areas is a symptom, not a cause.

When the rich people shut the door on development in the East Village, Williamsburg and Park Slope gentrified. When they tightened the screws in Williamsburg and Park Slope, Bushwick gentrified. Now that we're close to maxing out legal development in Bushwick, we see this happening in Crown Heights and ENY. Stopping development just makes the existing apartments even more expensive and pushes out those first-stage gentrifiers into other neighborhoods.

7 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Uh no... I have plenty of new developments happening in my neighborhood, and all it has done is given landlords in the area the grand idea of renovating their buildings so that they can jack up the rents even more.  There's a new building near me.  Studios start at $1,900.  One bedrooms start at $2,650 and two bedrooms go for $3,300.  People with higher incomes always have to move in (even if just slightly), regardless of the area.  

The reason you see this is because latent demand in New York is ridiculously high. Average home price in the rest of the US is probably in the neighborhood of 300K, but a decent home or condo in NY is easily twice, three times that. So you'd need to build at least triple the current building rate to correct prices.

Even then, that ends up encouraging even more people to buy, because how many people in NY move out because of high rents, or how many people give up trying to move here because of high rents? I know I did.

The point is that putting a lid on development only makes things really bad, as opposed to pretty bad (see: East Village, Park Slope)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

Gentrification of poor areas is a symptom, not a cause.

When the rich people shut the door on development in the East Village, Williamsburg and Park Slope gentrified. When they tightened the screws in Williamsburg and Park Slope, Bushwick gentrified. Now that we're close to maxing out legal development in Bushwick, we see this happening in Crown Heights and ENY. Stopping development just makes the existing apartments even more expensive and pushes out those first-stage gentrifiers into other neighborhoods.

The reason you see this is because latent demand in New York is ridiculously high. Average home price in the rest of the US is probably in the neighborhood of 300K, but a decent home or condo in NY is easily twice, three times that. So you'd need to build at least triple the current building rate to correct prices.

Even then, that ends up encouraging even more people to buy, because how many people in NY move out because of high rents, or how many people give up trying to move here because of high rents? I know I did.

The point is that putting a lid on development only makes things really bad, as opposed to pretty bad (see: East Village, Park Slope)

I don't fully agree with that. We are very NIMBY here in Riverdale, and steps were taken to curb development before I even moved here to ensure that the natural beauty of the neighborhood remained and that we didn't have buildings coming online that were out of line with what was here.  We've fought various projects since I've moved here, including the Montefiore project which would've destroyed the neighborhood and would've forced me to move given how close the proposed site was to where I lived in Riverdale at the time.  

We can't just give developers carte blanche to build in this city because the reality is they don't give a damn about the people that live in the communities.  They care about profits because being a developer is a business.  Being that Riverdale is an affluent community, we have lawyers and other organizations such as the Committee to Protect Riverdale that have deep pockets or are very dedicated that can fight this sort of thing, as we did with Montefiore, forcing them to sell their property to a developer who had a better understanding of what this community is about and will thus build luxury apartments in line with what the community needs.  

There's development and then there is over development, and a lack of planning.  It's easy to construct buildings, but these developers don't care about things like parking, increased congestion, and the strain on the transit system that their buildings create, just as we're seeing now. This is where the mayor comes into play to play hard ball with the developers and say hey if you want to build here you need to aid in ensuring that transportation and other necessary infrastructure upgrades are in place instead of them reaping from endless tax breaks to build affordable housing with no infrastructure in place. The real issue here is there is too much subsidized housing in this city.  I know of some old people that are paying absurdly low rents in expensive parts of Manhattan... Something like $300 a month for a huge one bedroom.... Meanwhile a one bedroom in my building is $2100 - 2300 at market rate (there is no subsidized housing). That's a huge difference in price, and it skews things considerably. Release those subsidized apartments onto the market and you'll see prices go down.

[I Run Trains]

12 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

 

What a dump that control tower is. They can't afford a decent chair for her?  Her chair is covered by a garbage bag... Smh

 

 

 

Sometimes Your so smart, that you actually sound dumb!!

Since you don't work for the  but you know everything about it,

know that people tend to cover seats and chairs because you have nasty and dirty Co workers. Some people just don't care about they're hygiene, and don't care who or what it effects......... Mr Know It All! - Shondrae!

[Via Garibaldi 8]

5 minutes ago, I Run Trains said:

Sometimes Your so smart, that you actually sound dumb!!

Since you don't work for the  but you know everything about it,

know that people tend to cover seats and chairs because you have nasty and dirty Co workers. Some people just don't care about they're hygiene, and don't care who or what it effects......... Mr Know It All!

I may not work for the , but I certainly know the difference between "your" and "you're".  Covering your seat in a garbage bag is just disturbing, regardless of the reason, and it's even more disturbing that your co-workers are so nasty and dirty. And before you say they aren't, remember you're all brothers and sisters... When I worked with the I can't recall any of my co-workers being that disgusting.

[I Run Trains]

Just now, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I may not work for the , but I certainly know the difference between "your" and "you're".  Covering your seat in the garbage bag is just disturbing regardless of the reason, and it's even disturbing that your co-workers are so nasty and dirty. And before you say they aren't, remember you're all brothers and sisters, remember...

Your, You're, ur... what ever!

If we don't have the same mother or father THE WE AINT BROTHERS OR SISTERS! Yeah, and it is disturbing that people don't have no consideration for people about them, but at the end of the day THATS NOT MY PROBLEM! and as far as the garbage bag, Call it what you want but your bougie ass probably never had to experience that!! Everything gets covered... When i operate my train, SEAT GETS COVERED! Bus drivers COVER THE SEATS!! IT IS WHAT IT IS!! 

[Deucey]

4 hours ago, LTA1992 said:

That's only an issue when you don't INCREASE THE DEVELOPMENT ON EXISTING SPACE. If you gentrify a neighborhood while keeping the same zoning that exists, no new housing is created and thus prices rise. That's the problem that people see when they have negative views on gentrification. 

When you increase density in areas that are gentrifying, you increase the overall housing available. Which means that the new can come in, while leaving plenty for those who already reside in the area. When housing is more plentiful, you can afford to keep prices for low income individuals somewhat stable. THAT is the solution I was referring to. But I guess neither one of you thought of that.

It's a simple methodology. To keep prices low for those who are already here, increase supply. You can't increase supply if you don't up the density. Prices only go up when housing is scarce. And scarce it is. THAT is the issue with gentrification. Not the phenomenon itself as it's happened time and time again here. There's a reason I almost never use the word.

Back in the early 1900s, they drew up the Dual Systems Contracts specifically to increase housing in the city as the key to that was transportation. The goal being to provide new homes in better, cleaner, areas of the city which would allow the poorer residents that were stuck in the slums of Lower Manhattan an opportunity to get their piece of the American Dream. Instead of living in extremely crowded conditions near their work, they could now live further away and still be able to reach their jobs while not having to pay much more than they already did to live and at the same time, allow an influx of new residents.. This also created jobs because these new areas now needed city services, stores, schools, and whatever else. The same applies today. Do more with what you have so that those without will have a chance.

1) People become rich because they see an opportunity and craft a response that exploits it.

2) Rich stay rich because they take calculated risks towards opportunity.

I say that to say that if anyone saw opportunity to make money off of affordable housing, they'd move heaven, earth and bureaucracy to do it. (Pun intended). But they're not. Why?

Because after all the construction and maintenance costs, there's no money in charging people $1000/month to live in BedStuy - which is why every studio I list in BedStuy is $1600, and why every three bedroom is $2700 or higher (with $2700 being extremely lucky a price). @Via Garibaldi 8 can tell you about construction costs firsthand.

People aren't building buildings for altruistic aims - they build them to make money - either off the sales or regular revenue off the rents. And with skyrises, the money for selling condos is in getting that maintenance fee each month. If there was money in turning East NY into Coney Island with all the co-ops, it would've been done already. But it's not. Why?

Because if you build it, they only come with slick marketing that changes perceptions - like how Williamsburg is "cool". And when that perception changes and people start moving there, if there was a glut of units, there's now a scarcity of them because of demand. And prices go up because people will pay more to live there because they wish to be "cool". And when landlords figure out that the $1200/month semi-legal studio can now get $1800, or the family that's rented that 3 bedroom for $1700/month for a decade is keeping him/her from getting $3500/month, there's not a single rent control or rent stabilization law that'll keep that family in that apartment.

"But build more supply and you'll lower demand!!!" True. But:

1) There's a truism: buy land cuz God ain't making more of it. Land and the stuff on top of it gets more expensive because it is in short supply (especially for land near a subway or passenger railroad facility) and

2) No one is going to build stuff to lose money or not make as much money, and tax credits, breaks and offsets don't stem losses - despite supply-sider math. There is no volume in real estate - Macy's can sell socks barely making profit because you'll likely leave there with ties, shirts, colognes or Levi's. Landlords don't have a way to charge you $100 over cost and make it up by selling you a gym pass and receiving residuals. So they're not going to spend several million dollars building new housing at $1200 a unit and rent it for $1300 when the market rate is $2200. They're not going to lose $800/month in profit unnecessarily.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 hour ago, I Run Trains said:

Your, You're, ur... what ever!

If we don't have the same mother or father THE WE AINT BROTHERS OR SISTERS! Yeah, and it is disturbing that people don't have no consideration for people about them, but at the end of the day THATS NOT MY PROBLEM! and as far as the garbage bag, Call it what you want but your bougie ass probably never had to experience that!! Everything gets covered... When i operate my train, SEAT GETS COVERED! Bus drivers COVER THE SEATS!! IT IS WHAT IT IS!! 

I've worked with the and I worked in two different departments and never saw any chairs covered in garbage bags.

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

35 minutes ago, Deucey said:

1) People become rich because they see an opportunity and craft a response that exploits it.

2) Rich stay rich because they take calculated risks towards opportunity.

I say that to say that if anyone saw opportunity to make money off of affordable housing, they'd move heaven, earth and bureaucracy to do it. (Pun intended). But they're not. Why?

Because after all the construction and maintenance costs, there's no money in charging people $1000/month to live in BedStuy - which is why every studio I list in BedStuy is $1600, and why every three bedroom is $2700 or higher (with $2700 being extremely lucky a price). @Via Garibaldi 8 can tell you about construction costs firsthand.

People aren't building buildings for altruistic aims - they build them to make money - either off the sales or regular revenue off the rents. And with skyrises, the money for selling condos is in getting that maintenance fee each month. If there was money in turning East NY into Coney Island with all the co-ops, it would've been done already. But it's not. Why?

Because if you build it, they only come with slick marketing that changes perceptions - like how Williamsburg is "cool". And when that perception changes and people start moving there, if there was a glut of units, there's now a scarcity of them because of demand. And prices go up because people will pay more to live there because they wish to be "cool". And when landlords figure out that the $1200/month semi-legal studio can now get $1800, or the family that's rented that 3 bedroom for $1700/month for a decade is keeping him/her from getting $3500/month, there's not a single rent control or rent stabilization law that'll keep that family in that apartment.

"But build more supply and you'll lower demand!!!" True. But:

1) There's a truism: buy land cuz God ain't making more of it. Land and the stuff on top of it gets more expensive because it is in short supply (especially for land near a subway or passenger railroad facility) and

2) No one is going to build stuff to lose money or not make as much money, and tax credits, breaks and offsets don't stem losses - despite supply-sider math. There is no volume in real estate - Macy's can sell socks barely making profit because you'll likely leave there with ties, shirts, colognes or Levi's. Landlords don't have a way to charge you $100 over cost and make it up by selling you a gym pass and receiving residuals. So they're not going to spend several million dollars building new housing at $1200 a unit and rent it for $1300 when the market rate is $2200. They're not going to lose $800/month in profit unnecessarily.

You make some excellent points. The other thing is that land has become so expensive in NYC that you have to make everything "luxury" to break even, unless you're getting serious tax breaks, otherwise it doesn't make sense.  The land being expensive in NYC in addition to regulations drive up costs considerably, and those costs simply are passed on to renters and owners. The next thing that people are falling over for is air rights.  The city can't put in restrictions fast enough.

One last thing I wanted to point was this:

I'm sure many people on this forum have seen the corner of 86th and Lex. A developer is building a LARGE luxury doorman building with all of the bells and whistles, but I haven't heard a thing about infrastructure improvements.  The is already saturated, so let's build an enormous building right on the corner and dump more people onto a line that can't handle it, but yet the de Blasio administration will tell you that the overcrowding is all due to Cuomo and him not funding the .  The city knows about the crisis, yet they're permitting such projects to go forth regardless because there's too much money at play. To hell with the people that need the subway. They can just pack on.  De Blasio will continue to ride in his gas guzzling SUVs just the same.

[Deucey]

15 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

One last thing I wanted to point was this:

I'm sure many people on this forum have seen the corner of 86th and Lex. A developer is building a LARGE luxury doorman building with all of the bells and whistles, but I haven't heard a thing about infrastructure improvements.  The is already saturated, so let's build an enormous building right on the corner and dump more people onto a line that can't handle it, but yet the de Blasio administration will tell you that the overcrowding is all due to Cuomo and him not funding the .  The city knows about the crisis, yet they're permitting such projects to go forth regardless because there's too much money at play. To hell with the people that need the subway. They can just pack on.  De Blasio will continue to ride in his gas guzzling SUVs just the same.

If there ever was an example of induced demand, there it is.

Best slick marketing campaign in real estate: "close to transit." That leads to higher rents because you can walk downstairs and spit on the train. And at 86th and Lex, there's an even better one: "Hate the  ? Well, the  is three blocks away and you can get a seat to Times Square or Union Square."

So here's a new train line built to relieve the busiest train line in the US is now about to become just as busy over the next 20 years because developers will develop and zoning boards will rezone, and none of it will be done smartly.